clearly established.

Merits of Qualified Immunity Issue {14} Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Clearly Established Law {16} Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of showing that in October 1995 it was clearly established that law enforcement officers assisting

to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

DISCUSSION The Qualified Immunity Defense and Summary Judgment {8} Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 as long as “their conduct [did] not violate clearly

on the ground of qualified immunity.

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Government officials are entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, provided that their actions are objectively reasonable in the light of clearly established law. Harlow v.

We first note that the allegedly violated law that must be clearly established in the context of a qualified-immunity analysis is federal law, not state law. Estate of Himelstein v.

Government officials are also entitled to qualified immunity if, focusing on the particular facts, it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his or her acts did not violate a clearly established right.

violated clearly established law.

Qualified Immunity, Clearly Established Law, and Trujillo 2 {7} We begin by addressing Wood’s argument that the district court erred in 3 concluding he failed to establish that Trujillo violated clearly established law.

Ultimately, “[a]n official is entitled 5 to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment if the right allegedly 6 violated was not so clearly established that an objectively reasonable, similarly 7 situated official would

Standard of Review and Qualified Immunity {6} The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials, including police officers, from liability for civil claims “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

{8} We use a two-step analysis when evaluating a claim of qualified immunity: “(1) the defendant’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct

Even if Plaintiff satisfies the first step of the analysis, Defendants are still entitled to qualified immunity if the law governing the violation was not “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.

The issue on appeal with respect to § 1983 is whether the Individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that their alleged misconduct had not been “clearly established” in 1994 to be contrary to the federally

Such a person, however, is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless at the time of the alleged misconduct it was “clearly established” that the misconduct violated federal law. See Yount v.

{19} To determine whether Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, we must examine what was “clearly established” in 1994 when the alleged misconduct occurred. In Robinson v.

We believe, nevertheless, that summary judgment was properly granted on their claim of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects officials whose conduct does not contravene “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

was clearly established at the time of the conduct.

We hold that the officers did not violate clearly established law and, thus, had qualified immunity from Section 1983 liability. Accordingly, we affirm.

They retain the shield of qualified immunity as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Jennings and Maloney base their qualified immunity argument on the claim that Hinkle violated clearly established law when he failed to reveal all his information, favorable or unfavorable, to the magistrate and the grand jury.

One issue is qualified immunity. A public official is not liable for damages under Section 1983 unless the right violated by the official was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court has held: “[GJovernment officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Although Ex parte Romero may be persuasive precedent, it cannot be said to make the federal law clearly established so as to overcome qualified immunity if decisions in other jurisdictions are to the contrary.

Defendants claim they are entitled to qualified immunity because (1) they did not violate any federal right of Plaintiffs, or (2) if they did violate a federal right, the right was not clearly established at the time of their alleged

They claimed qualified immunity on three grounds: (1) the complaint failed to state a claim for violation of a federal right; (2) no federal right asserted in the complaint was clearly established by 1971; and (3) Plaintiff had not

The defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff demonstrates that the federal right so violated was a right “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. See Harlow v.

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Moongate has not proved that their conduct violated any clearly established constitutional rights. See Harlow v.

For Moongate to defeat Defendants’ qualified immunity, it must specifically show that Defendants: (1) violated a clearly established constitutional right; and (2) acted under color of state law.

Because we affirm summary judgment in favor of Defendants, we need not address the defense of qualified immunity. CONCLUSION “To the victor belong only those spoils that may be constitutionally obtained.”

Section 1983 because of Appellees’ defense of qualified immunity. 21. Public officials have qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C.

her conduct was violating that clearly established right.

As observed in Yount, government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from claims filed under 42 U.S.C.

their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Qualified immunity should be recognized where, under the particular facts, it was objectively reasonable for the government official to believe that his or her acts did not violate a clearly established right. Yount v.

Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 515 , 114 S.Ct. 1019 , 127 L.Ed.2d 344 (1994) (describing Davis as answering the “discrete question: Is qualified immunity defeated where a defendant violates any clearly established duty, including one under

Such a person is entitled to qualified immunity from suit, however, if his or her action was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. See Yount v. Millington, 117 N.M. 95, 98 , 869 P.2d 283, 286 (Ct.App.1993).

Second, if the law may have been violated, a court must ask if that law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Romero v. Sanchez, 119 N.M. 690, 692 , 895 P.2d 212, 214 (1995); see also Flores v.

of clearly established constitutional principles, see Anderson v.

The district court granted Montoya summary judgment, ruling that he was entitled to qualified immunity, because the firing did not violate clearly established constitutional law. We affirm.

) {11} Montoya’s potential liability is limited, however, by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

{24} Because Montoya is entitled to qualified immunity, we need not concern ourselves with his actual state of mind.

If it was, then granting summary judgment based on 6 qualified immunity is improper. Cf. Chavez v. Bd. of Cty.

Comm’rs of Curry Cty., 7 2001-NMCA-065, ¶ 30 , 130 N.M. 753 , 31 P.3d 1027 (concluding that the 8 defendant officers were “not entitled to qualified immunity” where “the relevant 9 law was clearly established”).

We, therefore, conclude that Plaintiff has not met her burden to 10 overcome Defendant’s qualified immunity claim because she has not shown that 11 the right arguably violated was clearly established. 12 II.

Pierce, 359 F.3d at 1289 . 11 {6} “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from 12 liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established 13 statutory or constitutional

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, a “plaintiff must demonstrate 16 that (1) the defendant’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, 17 and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct

Since the law was not clearly established, the 4 defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and the lower court’s decision was 5 reversed. Id. 6 {41} Reichle controls our analysis here.

{6} “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, a “plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the defendant’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct.”

Since the law was not clearly established, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and the lower court’s decision was reversed. Id. 16 {41} Reichle controls our analysis here.

{13} Because we are focusing on qualified immunity, we will only be addressing liability with respect to the individually named Defendants, and not APS or the School Board.

{14} In examining a claim for qualified immunity, we must first ask if Plaintiff has asserted a violation of her constitutional rights at all and then determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time

the law was clearly established at the time when the alleged violation occurred.

It granted Defendant Parkin qualified immunity, determining that “there was no apparent violation of a clearly established constitutional right” because it was reasonable for Defendant Parkin to have been uncertain as to whether a

Since Defendant Parkin was entitled to qualified immunity, the district court granted him summary judgment as a matter of law.

established Fourth Amendment rights.